Wednesday, May 14, 2014

I have been thinking a lot about the pitfalls of placing too much stock in the
idea of government inefficiency when it does economic tasks outside its proper
scope. For example, Republicans sometimes warn that some statist proposal they
don't like will end up making whatever new government "service" is being
proposed "like the post office". One problem is that there are examples of
things even the government has managed to get right on some levels, like the
1960's space program, and some that it does, or seems to do, reasonably well,
like highways. (In many such cases, however, such factors as: near-monopoly status of the government, the
fact that most people aren't used to thinking about how things could be done differently, and "things unseen"
might be making it look better (or less inept) than it is.) This is not to say
that the there can't be merits to the argument, but it should not be used
as a substitute for -- or a way to avoid -- pointing out that some proposal
is a misuse of government, and will violate individual
rights whatever the merits of its execution.

That said, a quick reading of a John Stossel
piece reminded me of this type of argument a couple of times. I'll discuss
one of them:

Every year, government gives the group Family Expectations $100
million to teach couples how to have "healthy relationships." Family
Expectations gives parents "crib cash" if they follow certain rules and advice.

Does this preserve marriage? No. The government's own study found
that couples who attended Family Expectations workshops were no more likely to
stay together.

So did politicians stop the
funding? Of course not. They're politicians -- they never stop
throwing your money away. This year they gave Family Expectations another $100
million. [links dropped, bold added]

Regarding the handing-out of government loot to Family Expectations: That
shoudn't be done even if that outfit preserved and perfected every marriage it
touched. That money had to come from somewhere, and it wasn't from paying
customers or voluntary donations. (And profitability is often a blind spot
among those who merely ask how well the government does things. Failing to
consider the relationship between the moral and the practical can lead to such blind spots.)
Thus, even if Family Expectations lived up to expectations, its source of
income would have to be considered in any discussion of, say, how well the
government promotes marriage, including the idea of it contracting out such a
service. Finally, Stossel is right to note the obvious waste of money, but the
fact is that the money should have been cut off long ago on the grounds that
preserving marriages is beyond the proper scope of government.